The future-blind v. the realists
ap888 at SPAMlafn.org
Sun Jun 18 13:20:18 MDT 2000
Thank you Doyle.
Doyle Saylor wrote:
> Greetings Comrades,
> Mark Jones replies to Jose Perez and others starting with this comment
> on this thread subject line,
> Whatever the future-blind may think, it is not just one or two deranged
> Marxists who fear for the future. Even by-nature optimists (see below)
> reason to doubt.
> To me this is the classically stated formula about disability being the
> problem with political disagreement. Obviously the term "blind" here
> means not understanding disagreeing with my point of view. Unable to
> comprehend my point.
> The second point Mark makes is that Mark and Lou (I think Lou is the
> other person concerned with global warming on Mark's side here) are
> deranged if they are a minority view point here.
> I've already made this point to Jose at the beginning of this debate
> about Global Warming. The underlying anti-disabled view of persons
> through everyday metaphors has little or nothing to contribute to the
> debates themselves and makes it just that much harder to get across to
> people that disabled people have a place in the social structure at all
> While being future-blind is anti-disabled in the sense I am driving at
> here, the crucial conceptual anti-disabled metaphor Mark uses is about
> "derangement". Let me be clear, in a left political arena, there will be
> people who are obsessive and they will be here and there throughout the
> political arena. There is a disability called obsession which is as
> close as I can figure Mark can mean by saying derangement when Mark
> indicates people cling to a minority position against strong arguments,
> and let's not get into a witch hunt against disabled people. Those
> obsessive people fit the term crazy, deranged, etc, the "folk psychology"
> of understanding human consciousness that people speculate about
> constantly. But we have no way to measure that, don't know which person
> is obsessive here on this list for example, and do we really want to
> reject their views because they are obsessive? Just saying the words
> does not make anything more plain and clear about the reality of debate
> structure and why things work the way they do.
> A position is not destroyed because someone is obsessive. They do not
> contaminate a position because they obsess about saying something.
> Rather their behavior does not socially fit as well as most people, and
> that has little to do with content per se. The problem is with
> flexibility in socially functioning in the larger social structure. The
> ability to debate and resolve issues varies from human being to human
> being. We don't know why people stick to a position. People love
> someone, and they stick to that person because they do, despite the
> persons flaws, and have to make do with that persons flaws in going
> forward with their own lives. Such social stickiness gets lost and
> misunderstood by the constant fear of disability being generated at all
> times everywhere in the left concerning sectarianism, and dogmatism.
> The problem is not that derangement might create problems for Mark Jones,
> but the ability of an organization to function with someone like Mark in
> a position of responsibility. That disability content has little
> directly to do with debating the merits of the global warming cannot be
> understood unless one stands back and sees the distinction I am making.
> This ubiquitous resort to using disability as a political condemnation
> makes it difficult to realistically understand social structure where
> blind and obsessive people will be a part of the whole working class
> structure and not outside the circle of the working class. What is the
> problem that saying you yourself are deranged will solve?
> The appeal that Mark makes here to an appearance of being "deranged" is
> meant to describe how he understands others perceptions of his thinking.
> The conceptualization is deeply flawed and anti-disabled.
> Doyle Saylor
Los Angeles, CA
Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract
More information about the Marxism